Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 229 posts

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#181

Post by tut-urut-utut »

fritztastic wrote: post #171
cyphertruck wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government had bo legal right to the bitcoin. Innocent until proven guilty, means the government stole the bitcoin in a criminal attempt to deny him an adequate defense. You can’t “steal” your own property. The government agents involved are all felons under 18 U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 and 18 U.S. Code § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law -…

Even without knowing the letter of the law to a T I'm aware that in a criminal case evidence is confiscated, assets are frozen, etc. during prosecution. It's standard procedure. I don't see how holding bitcoin from a money laundering case is evidence of government corruption. Sure, the CJ system is broken and awful... but your ideas of why are just incorrect.

> I'm aware that in a criminal case evidence is confiscated, assets are frozen, etc. during prosecution. It's standard procedure. I don't see how holding bitcoin from a money laundering case is evidence of government corruption.

As fas as I understand it, they didn't seize Bitcoins. They seized the computer, and the computer is still in the government's hands.

If they really wanted to seize Bitcoins, they could transfer them to the Wallet they own. Given the fact that they left them where they were, means they didn't seize them, and they can't complain that a person moved them somewhere else.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#182

Post by dale_glass »

988747 wrote: post #170
theGnuMe wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feds do this because they can’t win against well funded defendants.

That does not make it OK. The proper solution is one or both of: - Make laws so simple that a layman can understand them, thus removing the need for professional lawyers, and their exorbitant fees. - Have prosecution be equally well funded as a defendant.

Laws start simple. Eg, Code of Hammurabi. Then they get complicated as we run into more and more edge cases that need handling.

In good measure laws get complicated because simple laws get worked around and abused.

We see this in tech too. Email is a simple concept that's grown into a highly specialized territory because spammers will exploit everything they can, and the more holes you patch, the more complex the system becomes.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#183

Post by api »

dale_glass wrote: post #182
988747 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not make it OK. The proper solution is one or both of: - Make laws so simple that a layman can understand them, thus removing the need for professional lawyers, and their exorbitant fees. - Have prosecution be equally well funded as a defendant.

Laws start simple. Eg, Code of Hammurabi. Then they get complicated as we run into more and more edge cases that need handling. In good measure laws get complicated because simple laws get worked around and abused. We see this in tech too. Email is a simple concept that's grown into a highly specialized territory because spammers will exploit everything they can, and the more holes you patch, the more complex the sys…

> the more holes you patch…

In protocols at least the solution is to design one that assumes a very hostile network and is inherently built for it. None of the old first generation Internet protocols are like that.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#184

Post by rjmunro »

cortic wrote: post #154
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which means the feds didn't actually seize anything Seizure is tied to possession, a legal concept [1]. Not control. Courts commonly authorize the seizure assets not yet under the government's physical control. (I agree the terminology is misleading.) [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/seizure

So when i read that a suspect was seized by police; They might have just recovered a picture of the person..? But then the real person can't change addresses as they would be charged with escaping from police custody.. Doesn't seem right.

I think that when you read that a suspect was "seized" by police, the person writing it doesn't know what "seized" legally means, and they should have said "arrested" or "taken into custody" or something.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#185

Post by Vespasian »

once_inc wrote: post #136
automatic6131 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The bitcoiner isn't going to hand over his coins for any reason (including torture, torture of family members, bribery, etc). Lol. Lmao, even. Let's just suppose a completely different kind of human.

People have died for less. You are assuming everyone has the same kind of morals and ethics as yourself.

Some yes, but most people are happily giving up everything they own to avoid pain and suffering of themselves or their loved one.

This is nothing new and is proven throughout history.

It's also perfectly understandable that you'll choose the well being of your child or significant other over some money.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#186

Post by dale_glass »

api wrote: post #183
dale_glass wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws start simple. Eg, Code of Hammurabi. Then they get complicated as we run into more and more edge cases that need handling. In good measure laws get complicated because simple laws get worked around and abused. We see this in tech too. Email is a simple concept that's grown into a highly specialized territory because spammers will exploit everything they can, and the more holes you patch, the more complex the sys…

> the more holes you patch… In protocols at least the solution is to design one that assumes a very hostile network and is inherently built for it. None of the old first generation Internet protocols are like that.

So for instance, Bitcoin? Yeah, it's not the worst out there, but it's far from layman friendly. That's already highly specialized territory.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#187

Post by ephbit »

andywood wrote: post #92
olalonde wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People have been noting for awhile how often law enforcement just leaves the "seized" coins in the original wallet Do you have any source on that?

Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33088681

Come on.

I clicked on this link expecting to actually get some evidence.

You just wasted my time. Thank you not.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#188

Post by inglor »

alasdair_ wrote: post #179
inglor wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that makes Iran not a democracy is that all those bodies (parliament, president, parties) answer to the supreme leader and religious authority. It’s not a democracy if the elected bodies all answer to unelected ones.

> It’s not a democracy if the elected bodies all answer to unelected ones. Like the supreme court?

The Supreme Court of which country?

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#189

Post by richbell »

kube-system wrote: post #57
richbell wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

Irrelevant. If they have a warrant they can physically knock down your door and search your underwear drawer.

Surely it's relevant to point out their long history of illegal surveillance and parallel construction?

I'm not claiming that this was the case here, I just don't think the government deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Re: Feds seized $311M in Bitcoin, then hacker stole it back

#190

Post by teekert »

Can you even say "stealing back" when the Feds just had some copy of a private key while there always have been (many) others?

I mean, would you call it stealing back if the Feds seize a real key to a vault, know there may be others out there and then leave the fault completely accessible only to act surprised when the vault is empty after some time?

Ownership of blockchain assets is defined by who has access to the private keys. It seems a bit ignorant to forget about this, much less write a piece ignoring this.

Post reply on HN